Are winning and imitating the primary indicators of intelligence?
Winning

My feeling is that utility is the standard of determining intelligence, and merely connotes the strength of a decision making algorithm.  

Winning is a metric involving strength in relation to other agents, but may not always result in optimal global utility.  (Here I'm thinking of a game AI that always wins.  In a game like Chess, a subset of serious players may appreciate this, but it's unclear that this would be any kind of fun for the average player.  Similarly, an unbeatable AI in a game like Civilization or Stellaris would be very poorly received by most players.)  

In the paper Depth In Strategic Games they formalize the term "strategy ladder". A simple definition of this concept is a series of AIs that are "meaningfully weak".  Specifically, players learn to beat them and in so doing learn different levels of strategy, ascending up ladder.

In this example, user engagement is the ultimate goal, not the AI winning every game! 



Imitation

Turing makes a compelling case that imitation is an indication of intelligence (self-awareness and "true comprehension" as strictly corollary.)

I like to reduce this idea to Captcha, because it involves utility.  At some point Captcha may no longer work because the average bot is a "smart" in solving them as the lowest-common denominator human.  

The same goes for chat bot--it they can successfully imitate humans, they can be considered as smart as those humans in regard to chatting.



Conclusion: Both winning and imitation are indicators of intelligence, whether machine-based of biological.